Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:47:39.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Membership in the Universal Postal Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Benjamin Akzin
Benjamin Akzin*
Affiliation:
University of Paris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Universal Postal Union is one of the oldest of the existing interstate organizations. It has a continuous record of useful service to the international community, extending over a period of almost sixty years. It was first established as the Union Générale des Postes in 1874, and it has borne it present name since 1878. A study of its structure has raised many interesting points with reference to its membership, and has revealed innovations of which little account has been taken by writers on international law, but which may have significance for the theory and the practical development of international personality. On the other hand, certain ambiguities of the texts of the Postal Conventions may be pointed out, which might be conveniently avoided in future enactments.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , October 1933 , pp. 651 - 674
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The texts will be found in the publications of the Postal Union and in the official publications of the participating states, as well as in the following collections: Treaty of Berne—Martens, Nouveau Recueil Général de Traités, 2* série, Vol. 1, p. 651, British & Foreign State Papers, Vol. 65; Arrangement of Berne—Martens, id., p. 660, State Papers, Vol. 67; Convention of Paris—Martens, Vol. 3, p. 699, State Papers, Vol. 69; Additional Act of Lisbon—Martens, Vol. 11, p. 1, State Papers, Vol. 76; Convention of Vienna—Martens, Vol. 17, p. 628, State Papers, Vol. 83; Convention of Washington—Martens, Vol. 28, p. 453, State Papers, Vol. 89; Convention of Rome—Martens, 3e série, Vol. 1, p. 355, State Papers, Vol. 99; Convention of Madrid—Martens, Vol. 15, p. 722, State Papers, Vol. 114; Convention of Stockholm—Martens, Vol. 19, p. 345; Convention of London—League of Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 102, p. 245, Hudson, International Legislation, Vol. 4, p. 2869. The official language of all Postal Conventions is French. The texts quoted in the present article follow the translation of the League of Nations Treaty Series, for the Convention of 1929, and that of the U. S. Statutes, for the preceding conventions.

2 The title as well as the subsequent text describe the instrument as “Treaty,” except for the preamble which refers to it as “ Convention.” The French signature was given on May 3,1875 (Br. & For. State Papers, Vol. 65, p. 20 seq.). The treaty was ratified by all parties, though not within the time specified, and, on the part of France, with certain reservations (id.).

3 Austria, Law of Dec. 21,1867, Art 1; Hungary, Law XII of 1867, Art. 8; Sweden and Norway, Union Act of Aug. 6,1815, Art. 7. See Dareste, Les Constitutions modernes, 1883.

4 See Renault, Études sur les rapports internationally, 1877, p. 27.

5 Art. 14 seems to indicate that the term “ contracting party” is used when dealing with the international character of a member, while “ country” serves to denote its internal functions: “ The stipulations of the present treaty do not involve any alteration in the interior postal legislation of any country, nor any restriction of the right of the contracting parties to maintain and to conclude treaties, as well as to maintain and establish more restricted unions with a view to a progressive improvement of postal relations.” However, this distinction is not generally maintained, neither in this nor in the following postal conventions.

6 Cf. Martens, Nouveau Recueil, 2* série, Vol. 1, p. 660; L’ Union Postale Universelle Ménoire publie par le Bureau International, 1924, p. 28.

7 Cf. Buehler, Der Weltpostverein, 1930, p. 27 seq. and 78 seq.

8 Previous to the conference, the colony of Malta was admitted to the Union, but it is not clear whether it was admitted as a member, under Art. 17 of the Treaty of 1874, or whether the British membership was extended so as to include Malta.

9 The words “subject to approval” do not constitute any special reservation inspired by the colonial status of the new members, but are simply a consequence of the general rule of Art. 17, § 6 of the Treaty of Berne.

10 Br. & For. State Papers, Vol. 69, p. 695. See also, idem, the acts of accession of different colonies. The texts are identical, save in so far as they provide for the accession of the mother-land on behalf of the colony.

11 L’Union Postale, Vol. 2, p. 65. Cf. also pp. 89, 155, 176, 200 and 221.

12 Buehler, op. cit., p. 78 seq., believes that the status of the colonies was in no way determined by the Arrangement of 1876, save in so far as they were to contribute to the expenses of the Central Office, and that the right to vote was conferred on them only by the Convention of 1878. This point of view is, however, inconsistent with the texts. British India and the French colonies were admitted to the Union in 1876 under Art. 17 of the Treaty of Berne, and so were other colonies and sovereign states. No restriction as to the status of the colonies was contained in either Art. 17 or in the Arrangement of 1876, and they must be said, therefore, to have possessed full powers of membership. Subsequently, dealing with the colonial problem, the Convention of 1878 gave the colonies admitted to membership a special status which amounted to a restriction of their position between 1876 and 1878.

13 Br. & For. State Papers, Vol. 83, p. 148 seq.

14 Cf. Buehler, op. cit., p. 88.

15 Cf. Akzin, Lea Problèmes fondamentaux du droit international public, 1929, p. 121 seq.

16 The Telegraphic Union mastered the same difficulties in a much more satisfactory way: its basic document, the International Telegraphic Convention of St. Petersburg, is concluded between states only. It provides however for a règlement whose dispositions will be open to modification by administrations (Art. 13). Such modifications will fall within the competence of Administrative Conferences (Art. 15). Art. 16 disposes further:

“These conferences are composed of delegates representing the administrations of the contracting states.

“ In the deliberations, each administration is entitled to have a voice, with the reservation that, if there is a question of different administrations of one government, the request for it shall have been made by diplomatic channels to the government of the country where the conference is to meet, before the date fixed for convening, and that each of them shall have a special and separate representation.

“ The revisions resulting from the deliberations of the conferences are executory only after having received the approval of all the governments of the contracting states.” (Documents de la Conference Télégraphiqice de Bruxelles, 1928.)

The Telegraphic Union adopted a solution which is not inconsistent with the traditional methods of international law, which does not purport to revolutionize the notion of international personality, and, as far as technique of drafting is concerned, gives a precise status to each component part of the union.

17 Br. & For. State Papers, Vol. 69, p. 236. It will be noticed that the list quoted does not mention colonies admitted to a, if incomplete, membership status. It omits, however, not only the colonies expressly named in Art. 21 of the Paris Convention, but also certain British colonies, such as Hong Kong, Ceylon, Bermuda Islands, etc., which have been admitted to the Union under the same conditions as India. It is again impossible to say whether these British colonies are members of the Union, or simple dependencies of other members.

18 This point was made clear in 1921, when the Swiss Government had to reply to a German note objecting to the adhesion of the Saar territory to the Postal Union. The note of the Swiss Legation in Berlin of Feb. 7, 1921, replies as follows:

“Since Art. 24 of this agreement [Art. 24 of the Convention of Rome corresponds to Art. 18 of the Convention of Paris—B. A.] says nothing on the question of raising objections against admission into the Postal Union, and since the agreement can not give any information whatsoever on this point, the Federal Council considers it its duty to inform all participant states of the step which has been undertaken. Agreeing with the conception of the International Bureau of the Postal Union, the Federal Council believes that, in view of the silence of the text, it must presume that the declaration of adhesion, made known at the date ofOctober 12, is effective as long as it is not withdrawn by the adhering party… . As to the reasons on which the note of December 28 [the German objection.—B. A.] is based, the Swiss Government is not competent to examine them as to their justification.” (Das Saargebiet unter der Herrschaft des Waffenstilhlandsabkommens und des Vertrags von Versailles, Goman White Book, 1921, p. 104.)

19 Art. 18 does not even specify what diplomatic channel should be used for this notification. It is obvious that the Swiss Government is not compelled to give recognition to a diplomatic channel whose diplomatic status it does not recognize otherwise. But if the notification is conveyed to Switzerland by means of the diplomatic representatives of a government which it recognizes, it is not even clear whether Switzerland could refuse to take notice of the notification on the ground that the government in question is not properly qualified for representing the adhering country. Thus, if the Japanese Government were to notify the Swiss Government of the adhesion of Manchukuo to the Postal Convention, it is not clear how the Swiss Government could refuse to take notice of this adhesion on the ground that it still considers the territory of Manchukuo as forming part of China and that Japan has consequently no qualification to speak for it except at the request of the Chinese Government.

19a The translation, of the League of Nations Secretariat, which is followed here, is frequently careless. The proper translation of par vote diplomatique is “through diplomatic channels.”

20 A very interesting result of the extension to some colonies of the full status of membership is the possibility to apply to them the clause of compulsory arbitration provided for by Art. 10, § 1 of the 1929 Convention:

“ In case of disagreement between two or more members of the Union as to the interpretation of the convention and the agreements, or as to the responsibility imposed on an ad ministration by the application of these acts, the question in dispute is decided by arbitration. To that end, each of the administrations concerned chooses another member of the Union not directly interested in the matter.

“ If one of the offices in disagreement does not take any action on a proposal for arbitrar tion within a period of six months, or of nine months in the case of distant countries, the International Bureau, on a request, may call on the defaulting administration to appoint an arbitrator, or may appoint one officially.”

Indeed, an arbitration between China and the French colony of Indo-China took place under this clause. Cf. l’Union Postale, 1931, p. 91 seq.

But cannot, under the same clause, a colony claim arbitration as between itself and its mother country? Nothing in the text quoted precludes it from doing so. The mother country could hardly claim that international arbitration with its own colony would be contrary to its municipal law, as the provisions of Art. 6 of the same convention—“ The provisions of the convention and agreements of the Union do not override the legislation of any country as regards anything which is not expressly covered by these acts”—do not prevail against the express stipulation of Art. 10.

21 Another interesting instance of the extension of the international personality of colonies is given in the case of the Dutch colony of Surinam. Surinam is not even given individual membership in the Postal Union, but is comprised in the whole of the “Dutch colonies in America.” However, an agreement between the Post Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Post Office of Surinam was concluded on Jan. 7 and Feb. 10, 1930, and registered with the League of Nations on June 19, 1930, at the request of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom (League of Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. 102; and Registration of Treaties). It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that a treaty or international engagement within the meaning of Art. 18 of the Covenant has been thereby established between the United Kingdom and Surinam.

22 Australia, Canada, India and South Africa appear on the list in the Madrid Convention of 1920 and were struck out at the Congress of Stockholm. New Zealand, though at the time admittedly an international person and a member of the League of Nations, was refused membership by the Congress of Madrid, whereupon Great Britain declared that it transfers the vote granted “ the other Dominions and the whole of the British colonies and protectorates” to New Zealand. The 1924 Convention treats New Zealand as a full member without mentioning it in the colonial list. The Irish Free State appears first in the 1924 Convention and enjoys the same treatment. Cf. Documents of the Congresses of Madrid and Stockholm, and Buehler, op. cit.

23 Documents of the Congress of Madrid, Vol. II, p. 786 seq.

24 San Marino was taken out of the list, at Italy's request, at the Congress of Madrid, and appears since as a distinct member of the Union.

25 The inclusion of the Spanish possessions in North Africa in this list must mean, if anything, that the provision in Art. 8 of the 1929 Convention, giving the status of membership to “ the whole of the Spanish colonies,” does not apply to these particular possessions. Would it not be better, then, to state so clearly in Art. 8, instead of using the misleading term whole?

26 With the exception of Irak, which, while still under mandate, was granted individual membership, and of Lattaquieh, which is outside the Postal Union, all other territories under mandate are included in the Union, and should have been mentioned in Art. 9.

27 Documents of the Congress of Madrid, Vol. II, p. 790.

28 The Convention of 1929 came into effect on July 1,1930. However, most of the parties to the convention deposited their ratifications at a much later date. According to the information contained in the League of Nations Registration of Treaties series, July 1930- December 1932, the following members of the Union have not yet deposited their ratifications: Afghanistan, Albania, Philippine Islands, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Algeria, Indo-China, the whole of the other French colonies, Haiti, Honduras, Irish Free State, Liberia, Lithuania, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yemen.

It is not clear on what basis postal relations are conducted between these countries and the rest of the Union, as well as between the countries that have ratified the convention after July 1 in the interval between that date and their ratification.

29 At the time when this is being written, the international status of Mongolia, Tannu-Tuva and Manchukuo is still uncertain, but inasmuch as these territories are in fact under the control of the three republics, and inasmuch as the Chinese Government has no effective power over them, they must be held to be, for the time being, outside the Union.